If you could design a single-payer prescription benefit...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

spacecowgirl

in the bee-loud glade
20+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2004
Messages
2,641
Reaction score
757
What would it look like? What would the formulary be like? Would there be tiered copays? Any copays? Generics only? Would it be like Medicaid or Tricare? How would it affect work flow in the community pharmacy setting?


This is NOT a thread to discuss the merits of the current system vs single-payer health plans, do that in the eleventy billion other threads that ultimately veered to that subject.
 
Also clear guidelines for the use of nonformulary agents.

Example: aldosterone antagonists in HF

Everyone gets spironolactone to start. If a male patient experiences documented gynecomastia, he can get approval for eplerenone, but you can't start there just because the doctor thinks it's better or because the drug rep was hot, etc.

Clinical guidance should ideally be easily available through the payer's website.
 
Also clear guidelines for the use of nonformulary agents.

Example: aldosterone antagonists in HF

Everyone gets spironolactone to start. If a male patient experiences documented gynecomastia, he can get approval for eplerenone, but you can't start there just because the doctor thinks it's better or because the drug rep was hot, etc.

Clinical guidance should ideally be easily available through the payer's website.

I agree with everything you said, but there's no way the docs would go for it. I suppose the patient would still have the option to pay cash under this system, but your idea would further restrict what they realistically can and can't write for compared to our current system. I think this is a good idea, but I just don't imagine they'll see it that way.
 
I agree with everything you said, but there's no way the docs would go for it. I suppose the patient would still have the option to pay cash under this system, but your idea would further restrict what they realistically can and can't write for compared to our current system. I think this is a good idea, but I just don't imagine they'll see it that way.

This is all theoretical so I can make it however I want! 😛

The system I'm describing is essentially identical to the VA at least as it concerns non-formulary agents. For nonformularies or for situations where documented, evidence based medical need requires a more expensive agent, I think it's reasonable to allow approved patients to get the more expensive drug at the lowest copay level.

However, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say, "You have zits. Your doctor has given you a script for Solodyn and the copay will be $75. People have been using generic minocycline for acne for decades. If you would prefer to switch to regular release minocycline the copay will be $5." If the patient wants to pay for extended release minocycline, that's his or her business. If they don't, they get switched to a therapeutically equivalent generic per pharmacy. The doctor gets a note that the patient has switched and that's the end of it.

If we're talking single payer system, I'm assuming that the doctors will be part of the system and thus subject to the rules and policies that are set. They should be. One of my biggest gripes about community practice is the lack of evidence based prescribing. Drug reps and samples seriously contribute to this problem, so I'd eliminate them from my ideal system as well.
 
For simple drug classes with numerous members (ie, ACEI), only the 2-3 most cost-effective would be covered (based on pharmacoeconomic analysis). If you can't take either enalapril or lisinopril it just wasn't meant to be. You have lipitor, simvastatin or pravastatin pick one.

For more convoluted drug classes there would be step therapy and tiered copays.

Free oral contraceptive and lifestyle drugs (PDEIs) would either be not covered or very expensive.

No covered for crap, suck it brand name Auralgan or solodyn.

And if you want a brand name when there is an AB-rated generic you better have a hand signed note from Zeus or you will just have to tolerate your boring looking pill
 
For simple drug classes with numerous members (ie, ACEI), only the 2-3 most cost-effective would be covered (based on pharmacoeconomic analysis). If you can't take either enalapril or lisinopril it just wasn't meant to be. You have lipitor, simvastatin or pravastatin pick one.

For more convoluted drug classes there would be step therapy and tiered copays.

Free oral contraceptive and lifestyle drugs (PDEIs) would either be not covered or very expensive.

No covered for crap, suck it brand name Auralgan or solodyn.

And if you want a brand name when there is an AB-rated generic you better have a hand signed note from Zeus or you will just have to tolerate your boring looking pill

I agree with all of that!

We use these 2 ACEI (like you said). Documented intractable cough? Our formulary ARBs are valsartan and losartan. No you cannot start with an ARB. Everyone starts with an ACEI. No Toprol XL except for documented systolic heart failure. Otherwise, Lopressor is fine. But maybe make bisoprolol the preferred BB for HF. Bisoprolol, then Toprol or Coreg (whichever is cheaper).

Free or very very low cost for items that are preventative in nature like OC, prenatal vitamins, multivitamins, routine vaccinations and health screenings.

If you want some crap like Exforge or Azor or any of the billion combination pills, you will pay full price or a very high copay.
 
This is all theoretical so I can make it however I want! 😛

The system I'm describing is essentially identical to the VA at least as it concerns non-formulary agents. For nonformularies or for situations where documented, evidence based medical need requires a more expensive agent, I think it's reasonable to allow approved patients to get the more expensive drug at the lowest copay level.

Agreed, mostly. Do you think the patient should necessarily get the lowest copay automatically though? Shouldn't they bear at least some of the burden for the higher cost?

However, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say, "You have zits. Your doctor has given you a script for Solodyn and the copay will be $75. People have been using generic minocycline for acne for decades. If you would prefer to switch to regular release minocycline the copay will be $5." If the patient wants to pay for extended release minocycline, that's his or her business. If they don't, they get switched to a therapeutically equivalent generic per pharmacy. The doctor gets a note that the patient has switched and that's the end of it.

Agreed times infinity. This is practically a no brainer.

If we're talking single payer system, I'm assuming that the doctors will be part of the system and thus subject to the rules and policies that are set. They should be. One of my biggest gripes about community practice is the lack of evidence based prescribing. Drug reps and samples seriously contribute to this problem, so I'd eliminate them from my ideal system as well.

Ah yes, the classic "get you started on a free medication for a month without any consideration as to whether you can realistically afford this next month" scheme. I had a teenage girl last night who paid over 40 bucks for her birth control after I spent 20 minutes on the phone getting her coupon to work that knocked it down from 70. I'm sure she'll be paying 70 a month for it when the time comes 🙄
 
If you want some crap like Exforge or Azor or any of the billion combination pills, you will pay full price or a very high copay.

There will be analysis on combinations and whatever is cheaper is what you're getting. Lisinopril/hctz is ok, maybe generic lotrel, and hell no on Benicar HCT (violates 2 rules). I don't even try to keep track of combo HTN products anymore.

And pray your doctor follows the guidelines becasue if you show up with a prescription for an ARB for your 1st HTN therapy you're gonna get by with HCTZ, maybe lisinopril if you're lucky.
 
Agreed, mostly. Do you think the patient should necessarily get the lowest copay automatically though? Shouldn't they bear at least some of the burden for the higher cost?

I think that it's in the best interest of the payer for the patient to receive the most effective treatment for his or her condition. So I do advocate allowing patients to receive preferred pricing on agents that they require b/c of documented medical need. It has to be well documented though and based on sound evidence.

I do think it's fair and appropriate to set higher patient copays or contribution levels (within reason) for drug classes that are by nature more expensive, like biologics and chemotherapy drugs. But there should be provisions in place to assist low SES patients with their share of the cost of such medications if they are required.


Ah yes, the classic "get you started on a free medication for a month without any consideration as to whether you can realistically afford this next month" scheme. I had a teenage girl last night who paid over 40 bucks for her birth control after I spent 20 minutes on the phone getting her coupon to work that knocked it down from 70. I'm sure she'll be paying 70 a month for it when the time comes 🙄

One of my least favorite things about community pharmacy. On my advanced community APPE there was a doctor who would start EVERYONE with HTN on Micardis because "It's a great drug!" Um... OK. It's also not covered under our area's Medicaid managed care organization (Passport). After their free month was up, we'd have to get them switched to lisinopril. The doctor tried to bully pharmacy to submit bogus PA requests for the Micardis but we stood our ground. He started everyone on Micardis because of the samples he recieved from the drug reps. I hate samples. I'd ban them.
 
There will be analysis on combinations and whatever is cheaper is what you're getting. Lisinopril/hctz is ok, maybe generic lotrel, and hell no on Benicar HCT (violates 2 rules). I don't even try to keep track of combo HTN products anymore.

And pray your doctor follows the guidelines becasue if you show up with a prescription for an ARB for your 1st HTN therapy you're gonna get by with HCTZ, maybe lisinopril if you're lucky.

I've worked for the VA too long and can't keep up with that stuff either. When I've been on my community pharmacy rotations I spend the first week trying to figure out what all that **** is. Extended release amoxicillin? Really? Pristiq? Vyvanse? Nuvigil? That new 40 mg doxycycline (can't think of the name now)? Garbarge.

My ideal system would also have mandatory CPOE with built in clinical decision support. The hypertension order set would have links to JNC7 and other guidelines. For a new patient with HTN, the doctor would be prompted to order a thiazide unless contraindicated. The system would ask the doctor if the patient also has DM and if so, prompt him or her to order an ACEI. That kind of thing.
 
If we're talking single payer system, I'm assuming that the doctors will be part of the system and thus subject to the rules and policies that are set. They should be. One of my biggest gripes about community practice is the lack of evidence based prescribing. Drug reps and samples seriously contribute to this problem, so I'd eliminate them from my ideal system as well.

Not part of the system per se because we're taking single-payer , not addressing how care is delivered, only how it's paid for - it's more that with one formulary (oh! the idea!!!) knowing one formulary will be so much easier for prescribers. Fewer calls back to the office, fewer PAs.

Doctors can still write for something ridiculous like Solodyn, but I would say it's not covered period. No tiered copay, straight cash.
 
For simple drug classes with numerous members (ie, ACEI), only the 2-3 most cost-effective would be covered (based on pharmacoeconomic analysis). If you can't take either enalapril or lisinopril it just wasn't meant to be. You have lipitor, simvastatin or pravastatin pick one.

For more convoluted drug classes there would be step therapy and tiered copays.

Free oral contraceptive and lifestyle drugs (PDEIs) would either be not covered or very expensive*.

No covered for crap, suck it brand name Auralgan or solodyn.

And if you want a brand name when there is an AB-rated generic you better have a hand signed note from Zeus or you will just have to tolerate your boring looking pill

OK I get that is just an example, but why even allow lipitor? I say any drug class that has a generic in it, you start there. Particularly with stuff like statins.

Side Note: Anyone hear that radio commercial for lipitor that says something like: "There is no generic alternative to lipitor. If your pharmacy tries to change you to a generic medication, they are switching you to a different medication. Why change medications if lipitor is working for you? Ask your doctor..." Thanks Pfizer, real classy.

*You wouldn't cover contraceptives (not sure what you mean by wouldn't cover free oral contraceptives - if they are free why would you need to cover them - sorry if I am misunderstanding you)? Or lifestyle meds at all? That term is kinda vague - are we talking about not cover Latisse or not covering Alli/Nicotine Patches/Viagra? I don't care if we skip covering baldness/eyelash thickeners/etc. but what about weight loss pills, acne medicine, ED meds, etc? Where do you draw the line?
 
Not part of the system per se because we're taking single-payer , not addressing how care is delivered, only how it's paid for - it's more that with one formulary (oh! the idea!!!) knowing one formulary will be so much easier for prescribers. Fewer calls back to the office, fewer PAs.

Doctors can still write for something ridiculous like Solodyn, but I would say it's not covered period. No tiered copay, straight cash.

You're right! You did say single payer prescription benefit. I was just using the opportunity to push my socialist/pinko commie agenda advocating a single payer health care system! Busted! 😛😀

Good thread, by the way! 👍
 
*You wouldn't cover contraceptives (not sure what you mean by wouldn't cover free oral contraceptives - if they are free why would you need to cover them - sorry if I am misunderstanding you)? Or lifestyle meds at all? That term is kinda vague - are we talking about not cover Latisse or not covering Alli/Nicotine Patches/Viagra? I don't care if we skip covering baldness/eyelash thickeners/etc. but what about weight loss pills, acne medicine, ED meds, etc? Where do you draw the line?

I think he/she meant contraceptives would be free. As in, no copay. That's how I read it anyway.

Definitely no Latisse. I would cover NRT for sure. Plus smoking cessation counseling. I'd cover acne medications too. Acne can be disfiguring and very harmful to one's self esteem. Plus, there are effective and CHEAP options for RX acne meds.

I'm on the fence about ED meds. I have a number of young vets who have a service connected disability that contributes to impotence. I'd cover it in those cases, and not for super high copays. But overall I'm not sure about Viagra for everyone...
 
I think he/she meant contraceptives would be free. As in, no copay. That's how I read it anyway.

Definitely no Latisse. I would cover NRT for sure. Plus smoking cessation counseling. I'd cover acne medications too. Acne can be disfiguring and very harmful to one's self esteem. Plus, there are effective and CHEAP options for RX acne meds.

I'm on the fence about ED meds. I have a number of young vets who have a service connected disability that contributes to impotence. I'd cover it in those cases, and not for super high copays. But overall I'm not sure about Viagra for everyone...

Oh like "free oral contraceptive" and "no lifestyle drugs" are two different thoughts? I can see that - make a lot more sense that way too. I was just confused because they were joined by "and". I think you are correct though.

Yeah ED is right on the fence for me too. I mean if you have ED, you should get the drug, right? Definite quality of life issue there, no question about that - I would argue much more so than acne. But isn't it interesting how many people apparently have ED now that we have an effective treatment for it? Kinda makes me wonder... I think I would have the cheapest ED med covered at a higher copay level. It's a QOL issue for sure, but it's not life saving so the higher copay seems reasonable to me.

EDIT: "Viagra for everyone" would make a great marketing slogan!
 
OK I get that is just an example, but why even allow lipitor? I say any drug class that has a generic in it, you start there. Particularly with stuff like statins.

*You wouldn't cover contraceptives (not sure what you mean by wouldn't cover free oral contraceptives - if they are free why would you need to cover them - sorry if I am misunderstanding you)? Or lifestyle meds at all? That term is kinda vague - are we talking about not cover Latisse or not covering Alli/Nicotine Patches/Viagra? I don't care if we skip covering baldness/eyelash thickeners/etc. but what about weight loss pills, acne medicine, ED meds, etc? Where do you draw the line?

Sorry if it was unclear but free contraceptives for all! No copay.

I would consider lifestyle things like Latisse, weight loss drugs (until we get an effective one that is not just speed), baldness and PDEIs, etc. I guess I could be happy with PDEIs being PA only for special cases. But I really think it's being over prescribed and people are just using it for kicks. How often do you see a mid 30's man getting it when they have no existing risk factors for ED, all the time. I'd pay for Caverject becasue if you are willing to do that great for you!

Lifestyle drugs have no benefit on health (outside of vanity) so NRT and acne drugs are ok to cover.

As for the Statins, Lipitor would be covered after step therapy because honestly, 80mg of Lipitor is pretty much untouchable by generic statins.
 
Oh like "free oral contraceptive" and "no lifestyle drugs" are two different thoughts? I can see that - make a lot more sense that way too. I was just confused because they were joined by "and". I think you are correct though.

Yeah ED is right on the fence for me too. I mean if you have ED, you should get the drug, right? Definite quality of life issue there, no question about that - I would argue much more so than acne. But isn't it interesting how many people apparently have ED now that we have an effective treatment for it? Kinda makes me wonder... I think I would have the cheapest ED med covered at a higher copay level. It's a QOL issue for sure, but it's not life saving so the higher copay seems reasonable to me.

EDIT: "Viagra for everyone" would make a great marketing slogan!

I'm guessing that's probably not something that guys would generally want to make other people aware of, unless they have a good reason to do so.

Definitely a quality of life issue, but compared to other "non-essential" meds, like some of the reasonable acne stuff, it's pretty damn expensive. I'd say cover it, but for a high-ish copay.

That does bring up a thought though. In our hypothetical system, we could still allow for people who want name brand, "non-essential", etc. meds to purchase their own supplemental coverage. We could opt to cover only the essentials under the single payer plan, then leave the rest up to the individual/family to decide what additional coverage is needed. The definition of essential would have to be established first though. Thoughts?
 
That does bring up a thought though. In our hypothetical system, we could still allow for people who want name brand, "non-essential", etc. meds to purchase their own supplemental coverage. We could opt to cover only the essentials under the single payer plan, then leave the rest up to the individual/family to decide what additional coverage is needed. The definition of essential would have to be established first though. Thoughts?

I'd be worried that if we started allowing riders and fancy coverage plans we would quickly devolve into the situation we are in now.
 
I'm guessing that's probably not something that guys would generally want to make other people aware of, unless they have a good reason to do so.

Definitely a quality of life issue, but compared to other "non-essential" meds, like some of the reasonable acne stuff, it's pretty damn expensive. I'd say cover it, but for a high-ish copay.

That does bring up a thought though. In our hypothetical system, we could still allow for people who want name brand, "non-essential", etc. meds to purchase their own supplemental coverage. We could opt to cover only the essentials under the single payer plan, then leave the rest up to the individual/family to decide what additional coverage is needed. The definition of essential would have to be established first though. Thoughts?

That's true - my only point was that it's possible - just possible - that ED meds get abused. Although, how would you classify abuse in this category? If you would receive any benefit from the medicine, is it wrong to want it? Not me of course 😉, but I can imagine OTHER guys wanting it for recreational reasons (who are do not suffer from ED in the strictest sense). In a sense it is like ADD meds - who "really" needs it and who just likes the benefits? I have never tried either, but sometimes I wonder if I wouldn't benefit from Adderall. If a drug will help you preform (in whatever sense) is it really abuse?



It is called single payer for a reason. I have no problem with allowing cash payments for non-covered items for whatever reason, but if we allow other coverage plans we will be right back where we started.
 
That's true - my only point was that it's possible - just possible - that ED meds get abused. Although, how would you classify abuse in this category? If you would receive any benefit from the medicine, is it wrong to want it? Not me of course 😉, but I can imagine OTHER guys wanting it for recreational reasons (who are do not suffer from ED in the strictest sense). In a sense it is like ADD meds - who "really" needs it and who just likes the benefits? I have never tried either, but sometimes I wonder if I wouldn't benefit from Adderall. If a drug will help you preform (in whatever sense) is it really abuse?

Interesting points. If I was going to pick a drug to abuse though, it would totally be Adderall :laugh:

It is called single payer for a reason. I have no problem with allowing cash payments for non-covered items for whatever reason, but if we allow other coverage plans we will be right back where we started.

I'd be worried that if we started allowing riders and fancy coverage plans we would quickly devolve into the situation we are in now.

You both may be right, but I don't see our country pulling off any sort of single payer system unless there is some form of compromise. This would allow insurance companies to stay in business, and ridiculous people who demand ridiculous things from their insurance to keep wasting their money on it :laugh:

I don't know all of the details, but in Canada, for instance, they do allow for supplemental plans on top of their single payer system.
 
I'd do what France does. I have no idea what that is, but they've been a bunch of Camus reading commies since forever, so I figure they got an effective system figured out by now.

So my answer is plagiarism of the French.
 
You both may be right, but I don't see our country pulling off any sort of single payer system unless there is some form of compromise. This would allow insurance companies to stay in business, and ridiculous people who demand ridiculous things from their insurance to keep wasting their money on it :laugh:

After I stage my pinkocommie/socialist coup and appoint myself dictator for life (or at least 30 years a la Mubarek) I will implement a single payer system and crush all opposition with my iron fist! *evil plan laugh*

:laugh:
 
I'd do what France does. I have no idea what that is, but they've been a bunch of Camus reading commies since forever, so I figure they got an effective system figured out by now.

So my answer is plagiarism of the French.

I'll plagiarize any system which lets me drink wine at lunch and gives me 6 weeks of vacation
 
I don't know all of the details, but in Canada, for instance, they do allow for supplemental plans on top of their single payer system.

France is the same way. World class health care and still some people choose to get additional coverage. So you are right - supplemental plans are not impossible even in a single payer type system. (But we are imagining a hypothetical oasis of perfect healthcare, right? Supplemental plans play no role in my dream system.)

This is in contrast to say Germany - you CANNOT purchase any type of "superior" healthcare there. Everyone goes to the same doctors, etc. It is an incentive to have the best facilities possible - no getting around it rich people, if you want great health care the rest of the citizenry will have it also. Or you can leave the country to receive health care of course, but that isn't always practical.

Just so I am clear - I am not outright claiming that either of those countries have better health care than the US (we would need an impartial third party that looked at objective data in order to decide that). I was only debating the relative merits of allowing supplemental insurance in a single payer system.
 
France is the same way. World class health care and still some people choose to get additional coverage. So you are right - supplemental plans are not impossible even in a single payer type system. (But we are imagining a hypothetical oasis of perfect healthcare, right? Supplemental plans play no role in my dream system.)

So wait, now it's YOUR dream system? You might have to fight A4MD for it first :laugh:

This is in contrast to say Germany - you CANNOT purchase any type of "superior" healthcare there. Everyone goes to the same doctors, etc. It is an incentive to have the best facilities possible - no getting around it rich people, if you want great health care the rest of the citizenry will have it also. Or you can leave the country to receive health care of course, but that isn't always practical.

Just so I am clear - I am not outright claiming that either of those countries have better health care than the US (we would need an impartial third party that looked at objective data in order to decide that). I was only debating the relative merits of allowing supplemental insurance in a single payer system.

I didn't really think about it in that way, but you make a good point. It sounds like the government actually owns the facilities there though? It's hard to imagine us ever going to that extreme, but it's an interesting concept.
 
So wait, now it's YOUR dream system? You might have to fight A4MD for it first :laugh:



I didn't really think about it in that way, but you make a good point. It sounds like the government actually owns the facilities there though? It's hard to imagine us ever going to that extreme, but it's an interesting concept.

I would be willing to arm wrest for it if she is.



Yes they are government owned and every employee is a government employee. I wouldn't call that my dream system, but it is an interesting way of "fairly" distributing limited resources. In their system, economic worth does not drive therapy, and the wealth are incentivized (euphemism for required) to provide great service for the poor, if they themselves want great service. Imagine if everyone in America received the same level of care regardless of economic value - I need to sit down I am getting dizzy.
 
In Canada, our single-payer system doesn't apply to prescription drugs outside hospital. There is a government plan for people on disability/welfare/folks > 65 y.o. What I would suggest for the USian single-payer plan, that Obama's going to implement any day now, with the help of his Tea Party friends:

  • Do have copays. If everything is free, everybody runs to the dr for every tiny little thing, which drives up costs at that end.
  • Have an EVIDENCE-BASED formulary. We've had situations where drug companies are making secret backroom deals with political appointeees that have no medical/pharmaceutical training (who make a salary several times' that of health care workers, natch) who have the final say over the recommendations of the expert committees (which consist of PharmDs and PhDs who get paid much less than their political overlords. But I digress).
  • Don't have tiered co-pays. That's just confusing for everybody and is an extra hassle/expense. Have a flat co-pay. And have a mechanism for which unlisted drugs may be covered if the dr certifies that the patient meets certain criteria; ie, paying for Oxycontin only after the patient has been tried, and failed tx with, SR morphine.
  • Have strict and specific criteria for how mixtures are paid for. We had a situation in Ontario where any mixtures were covered, so drs were ordering stuff like, Cepacol mouthwash 350mL, add 2 mL glycerin, for their mum who's too cheap to buy mouthwash. Similar scammery with the skin creams.

And there needs to be some thought about what OTCs are covered, and how. You don't want pts running to their dr to get rxs for Maalox and Gaviscon and Metamucil and sunscreen and bisacodyl etc (we used to get whole families on welfare who would basically spend their Saturdays taking the whole family to the dr to stock up the medicine cabinet), but you may want to cover, say, 80mg aspirin for your post-ACS pts.
 
I don't know all of the details, but in Canada, for instance, they do allow for supplemental plans on top of their single payer system.

That's right. There's the basic single-payer plan, and most working people have supplemental health insurance through their employers. A few bucks a month comes off my paycheck and it pays for things like semi-private rooms, prescription drugs, massage therapy, custom orthotics, etc.

I had hernia surgery at a posh private clinic a couple of years ago. My four days of awesome top-notch care cost $500, which was totally covered.
 
In Canada, our single-payer system doesn't apply to prescription drugs outside hospital. There is a government plan for people on disability/welfare/folks > 65 y.o. What I would suggest for the USian single-payer plan, that Obama's going to implement any day now, with the help of his Tea Party friends:

  • Do have copays. If everything is free, everybody runs to the dr for every tiny little thing, which drives up costs at that end.
  • Have an EVIDENCE-BASED formulary. We've had situations where drug companies are making secret backroom deals with political appointeees that have no medical/pharmaceutical training (who make a salary several times' that of health care workers, natch) who have the final say over the recommendations of the expert committees (which consist of PharmDs and PhDs who get paid much less than their political overlords. But I digress).
  • Don't have tiered co-pays. That's just confusing for everybody and is an extra hassle/expense. Have a flat co-pay. And have a mechanism for which unlisted drugs may be covered if the dr certifies that the patient meets certain criteria; ie, paying for Oxycontin only after the patient has been tried, and failed tx with, SR morphine.
  • Have strict and specific criteria for how mixtures are paid for. We had a situation in Ontario where any mixtures were covered, so drs were ordering stuff like, Cepacol mouthwash 350mL, add 2 mL glycerin, for their mum who's too cheap to buy mouthwash. Similar scammery with the skin creams.

And there needs to be some thought about what OTCs are covered, and how. You don't want pts running to their dr to get rxs for Maalox and Gaviscon and Metamucil and sunscreen and bisacodyl etc (we used to get whole families on welfare who would basically spend their Saturdays taking the whole family to the dr to stock up the medicine cabinet), but you may want to cover, say, 80mg aspirin for your post-ACS pts.

Your ideas are far too reasonable. There's no way that **** would fly here. :meanie:
 
How ever did I miss this challenge?! You're going DOWN, pipsqueak!!!:meanie:

Bring it!

imgname--secpcaob_arm_wrestle---50226711--armwrestle.jpg
 
Current times are tough and there is a lot of needed change but I am still proud to be living in the greatest country in the world. 🙂
 
In Canada, our single-payer system doesn't apply to prescription drugs outside hospital. There is a government plan for people on disability/welfare/folks > 65 y.o. What I would suggest for the USian single-payer plan, that Obama's going to implement any day now, with the help of his Tea Party friends:

  • Stuff


  • Ontario also has an income tested program for those whose household drug expenditures exceeds (I think) 5% of their household income, and you can have a very high income and still qualify. Kinda makes paying for private insurance pointless since everyone has what I would consider a high-deductible plan anyway. Many home care clients also get drug coverage (among other services).

    Some people fall through the cracks, but very few do, and when they do, it's often because what they want isn't economically viable.

    High copays are iffy, since they are essentially a very regressive form of taxation, and small copays tend to get waived by many pharmacies, so have one, but make it mandatory to charge it.

    As already mentioned: Pay for a drug based on the value it provides (duh), but even pay different amounts to the drug company based on what the drug is being used for. And don't just calculate value based on years of life saved, but quality of life increases and other resource savings as well.

    I speculate in Ontario that the government in effect pays very little for Plavix when used in ASA allergy and a lot more when used in post-ACS cases (based on the LU codes).
 
This is all theoretical so I can make it however I want! 😛

The system I'm describing is essentially identical to the VA at least as it concerns non-formulary agents. For nonformularies or for situations where documented, evidence based medical need requires a more expensive agent, I think it's reasonable to allow approved patients to get the more expensive drug at the lowest copay level.

However, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say, "You have zits. Your doctor has given you a script for Solodyn and the copay will be $75. People have been using generic minocycline for acne for decades. If you would prefer to switch to regular release minocycline the copay will be $5." If the patient wants to pay for extended release minocycline, that's his or her business. If they don't, they get switched to a therapeutically equivalent generic per pharmacy. The doctor gets a note that the patient has switched and that's the end of it.

If we're talking single payer system, I'm assuming that the doctors will be part of the system and thus subject to the rules and policies that are set. They should be. One of my biggest gripes about community practice is the lack of evidence based prescribing. Drug reps and samples seriously contribute to this problem, so I'd eliminate them from my ideal system as well.
Ding! Ding! Ding!

Several years ago, I was amazed and infuriated to see the throngs of little Medicaid kiddies, who were all suddenly being prescribed Vyvanse--almost instantaneously from the moment this expensive brand-name drug was released. Of course, most of these children's issues were really just behavioral problems anyway, resulting from poor parenting (but that is a separate discussion for another day).

On the other hand, I definitely acknowledge that certain children truly do require treatment with stimulant medication. However, even in these little buggers with a true ADHD diagnosis--particularly in light of their family's dire financial circumstances and their reliance on public assistance to pay for their medication--I simply shall never understand why these kids cannot be treated effectively with one of the significantly cheaper (and virtually equivalent) generic stimulant drugs.

OK...so they will have to take an extra pill or two during the day, instead of just one fancy extended-release capsule in the morning. Well, boohoo, that's just the way life is! In the grand scheme of things, how difficult is it to swallow a generic "Adderall" tablet at lunchtime? Especially since this tiny action would save buckets of money from our dwindling healthcare budget.

Because our nation is being suffocated by the skyrocketing costs of healthcare, we simply cannot afford the enormous price tag to provide flashy "luxury" drugs, like Vyvanse, to our country's impoverished children--regardless of its convenient,, biotechnologically-engineered, delivery system. .
 
Last edited:
Wellll........an argument can be made for Vyvanse on the basis of its pharmacology, which (in theory) makes it less likely to be abused.

Where I work - in a jail - we got rid of Adderall because it was being traded, cheeked, etc. But Vyvanse doesn't seem to generate the same drug-seeking behaviour (anecdotal, I know).
 
I'm still waiting for the rest of the world to thank the US for subsidizing their healthcare thanks to our generous no-price-controls pharmaceutical industry.

Probably won't happen.
 
Wellll........an argument can be made for Vyvanse on the basis of its pharmacology, which (in theory) makes it less likely to be abused.

Where I work - in a jail - we got rid of Adderall because it was being traded, cheeked, etc. But Vyvanse doesn't seem to generate the same drug-seeking behaviour (anecdotal, I know).


still doesnt justify the cost difference
 
I'm still waiting for the rest of the world to thank the US for subsidizing their healthcare thanks to our generous no-price-controls pharmaceutical industry.

Probably won't happen.


NICE declines to carry drug b/c effectiveness not worth the cost, manufacturer cuts cost to provide to NICE...NICE then carries it

why cant we do that here?
 
NICE declines to carry drug b/c effectiveness not worth the cost, manufacturer cuts cost to provide to NICE...NICE then carries it

Why can't we do that here?

You don't necessarily want that. Here in Ontario, since 2006, a civil servant has the power to override the judgement of an expert committee solely on the basis of cost. For instance, the expert committee recommended that Januvia not be covered by Ontario Drug Benefit because of the paucity of evidence for Januvia reducing the complications of type II diabetes. But the drug company struck a secret deal with the government, and the drug got covered.

Other drugs covered on the basis of secret deals struck with the Ontario government, in defiance of the recommendations of the expert committee: Yasmin, Rasilez (later delisted), escitalopram, paliperidone, Mezavant, Omnaris.
 
You don't necessarily want that. Here in Ontario, since 2006, a civil servant has the power to override the judgement of an expert committee solely on the basis of cost. For instance, the expert committee recommended that Januvia not be covered by Ontario Drug Benefit because of the paucity of evidence for Januvia reducing the complications of type II diabetes. But the drug company struck a secret deal with the government, and the drug got covered.

Other drugs covered on the basis of secret deals struck with the Ontario government, in defiance of the recommendations of the expert committee: Yasmin, Rasilez (later delisted), escitalopram, paliperidone, Mezavant, Omnaris.


januvia is a joke....the reduction in A1C is not worth the price...its about leverage....other country organizations like NICE, have leverage, so they get a reasonable price if they initially say no, USA has none of that
 
Definitely tiered copays and step therapy. I would incentivize the the use of generics but provide a rapid mechanism for review of non-formulary requests.
there's already a rapid process for PA's, the issue is the doctors who wait till the end of the week to submit their requests.
 
januvia is a joke....the reduction in A1C is not worth the price...its about leverage....other country organizations like NICE, have leverage, so they get a reasonable price if they initially say no, USA has none of that

Yeah, we're kind of talking about two different things. Last year, several provincial governments got together, pooling their buying clout to leverage the best price on six generics (atorvastatin, ramipril, venlafaxine, amlodipine, omeprazole and rabeprazole). But then there's striking deals to cover single-source drugs like Januvia, where the evidence is still sketchy, in exchange for a discount.

I mean, if post-marketing surveillance reveals that pancreatitis from Januvia turns out to be more of a problem than first thought, can people sue the government if they find out that the government struck a deal to list it in defiance of its own experts?
 
Top